FEEDBACK
WHAT I SAW IN THE MAW OF LOVE AND HATE
by
ROBERT LEWIS
from Mark Goldfarb
"Despite our practised abhorrence of all activity associated
with genocide -- acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
-- its historical expression has been more frequent than granted
in part because the institutions dedicated to its prevention
have not sufficiently understood the workings of human nature.
Without exception, when one group comes to harbour hatred of
another, human nature predicts that the former will at a minimum
desire the elimination of the latter. What encourages the hating
group to carry out the deed – and the world to turn a
blind eye -- is the biological disposition (the reward system)
of the hater to be relieved of his hatred. It’s the same
sequence of genes operating when Tribe A, with only enough food
and water for itself, is threatened by Tribe B, for whom that
same food and water is the difference between life and death.
But when Tribe A wipes Tribe B off the map for all time, we
don’t call it genocide but survival of the fittest."
I call the above example genocide, not survival
of the fittest. Since I haven’t taken a survey of the
world’s 5.8 billion people who are 15 years-of-age or
older (15 being the approximate age I arbitrarily select as
the time humans begin to develop critical thinking skills),
I do not know what percentage of them would call it genocide
or survival of the fittest or something else. I’ll venture
to say neither do you.
Seeing as how you’ve got genes and genocide
on the brain, let’s talk about them. Genocide is not,
as you would have your reader believe, a response to a life
and death situation over an absolutely essential water supply,
oil supply, air supply, food supply or any other supply. Genocide
is a sign of one group’s hatred of another group, one
group’s greed, desire for power or need for a scapegoat.
War could be, but is not necessarily genocide. A skirmish is
not genocide. If my tribe kills five members of your tribe in
response to your tribe having killed two of mine, that is not
genocide. It is retaliation. It is ‘giving as good as
we got’, or ‘giving as good as we got plus a little
extra’ in order to send you the message that, when push
comes to shove, we will not accept your behaviour, we are not
afraid to fight back. Humans have co-existed since time immemorial
in this low-grade state of warfare or friction. Putting aside
for the moment the kill or be killed mentality of Social Darwinism
and all its pseudo-scientific gene pool-cleaning applications,
implications and justifications, I can’t think of a single
historical example where a Tribe A comitted genocide against
a Tribe B over a resource absolutely essential to the survival
of both tribes. Please enlighten me with a case in point.
Your position that, ‘without exception,
when one group comes to harbour hatred of another, human nature
predicts that the former will at a minimum desire the elimination
of the latter,’ and to your incontestable contention that
‘we are constituted to hate so as to eradicate the person
who has raped and murdered our child, since his removal from
existence is consistent with the upkeep and conservation of
a healthy and thriving gene pool,’ is fallacious bordering
on fictitious and easily refuted. Mohandas Ghandi, the Dalai
Lama, Martin Luther King and Jesus (to name a few) maintain
a following that number in the hundreds of millions. The millions
of Americans as well as non-Americans who conducted teach-ins,
demonstrated against the Vietnam War, and dodged the draft,
represent significant examples of love transcending hate. Old
Order Amish, a tribe of 225,000 that has thrived in North America
for over 300 years, are an example of a people who chose love
over hate, forgiveness over revenge, and whose ethos, deep as
marrow, or as you would say, deep as DNA, rips holes in your
‘open and shut’ theory. Allow me to refresh your
memory:
On October 2, 2006, in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania,
Charles Roberts walked into a school where he shot and killed
five Amish children and seriously wounded five more before turning
his gun on himself. On the very same day, Amish elders exhorted
their members not to hate the killer or think evil of him. They
forgave him immediately and completely, visited and comforted
his widow and family and set up a charitable fund for them.
Thirty members of the Amish community attended Charles Roberts’
funeral. Marie Roberts, his widow, was invited to the funeral
of one of the children her husband had murdered. The pacifistic
Amish, whose commitment to the words of Jesus is woven inextricably
into their lives, responded with a recognition that vengeance
does not undo a tragedy or repair a wrong, that forgiveness
– the “letting go of grudges” – trumps
resentment.
I agree, based on my experience, with your introductory
premises: Humans would rather love than hate. It is easier to
love than to hate. It is much easier for us to confront each
other when we’re in loving rather than hating mode. I
also agree, based on my experience, with your ending admonition:
Humans would do well to examine the demagoguery and rhetoric
that warp their psyches. I disagree with the weak-kneed genetic
profiling you lean on that absolves humanity of any responsibility
for its actions. New beginnings? I’m all for them. But
the argument,“It’s not my fault, my genes made me
do it,” prevents humanity from traversing the chasm that
lies between your first assertion and your last.
BACK
TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE
